Scope of Presidential Immunity Discussed [semi-satire]

This week, the US Supreme Court heard arguments over the scope of presidential immunity. The issue arose as a result of special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of former President Donald Trump for questioning the outcome of the 2020 election. During the discussion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked about former President Obama's drone strikes on American citizens.

Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Michael Dreeben said "we looked at this very carefully and determined that the federal murder statute does apply to the executive branch. So, if the president orders that someone be killed it is considered a lawful act. President Obama ordered more than 500 drone strikes resulting in between 300 and 800 civilian deaths, which the DOJ has determined were completely legal."

Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer observed that "it seems peculiar to me that a president ordering hits on people is covered by immunity, while a president questioning and challenging election irregularities can be prosecuted and imprisoned. Pardon me, but hasn't questioning and challenging reported election results been a fairly common practice in closely contested races? Didn't former Vice-President Al Gore go to court to challenge the 2000 election? Former President Trump went to court to challenge the 2020 election. Both challenges failed, but no one suggested that Gore should be prosecuted. What's the difference in these cases?"

Dreeben said "the person who was president during Gore's challenge--George Bush--missed his opportunity. But I doubt he would've succeeded because Gore is a Democrat and as such, cannot be an enemy of democracy. President Biden has learned from that mistake and has ordered the prosecution of Trump as a necessary and much needed action to defend democracy from its most dangerous enemy in our nation's history."

If you missed any of the other Semi-News/Semi-Satire posts you can find them at...

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/361583-2024-04-26-semi-news-semi-satire-april-28-2024-edition.htm

“we looked at this very carefully and determined that the federal murder statute does apply to the executive branch. So, if the president orders that someone be killed it is considered a lawful act. President Obama ordered more than 500 drone strikes resulting in between 300 and 800 civilian deaths, which the DOJ has determined were completely legal.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

UNder what enumerated presidential power in sectio 2 of the constitution? Waging war requires the declaration of COngress.Using deadly force against an American requires approval of Congress or a warrant of Death from the judicial system.

Otherwise hat’s genocide.

And this was done without a single finding as is required for the assassination of the enemies if the UNited STates who are marked for death?

All is now political. If the president is Democrat , he can commit genocide, buit if the president is Republican......
he can be sued ar criminalized for a private, not a public act?

What is public or private is decided by whether the preside gt is Democrat or Republican.

During the Census the geo-location in longitude and latitude of every household in America is peserved. All they have do do is enter the coordinates and send you a cruise missile or drone strike.And this fact does not bother anyone that the president can unilaterally kill a US citizen?

These fascists are stupid as all get out.

Hobbs countered, saying "how is a person who moves into an unoccupied house supposed to know it's not theirs for the taking? It is the responsibility of the person who claims to own the property to prove their ownership. Until that is done, why should law enforcement assume that those physically present in the structure have no right to be there? Since the squatters are otherwise homeless why shouldn't they avail themselves of an apparently abandoned dwelling? People wealthy enough to own vacant properties can afford to incur the burden of going through the time and effort to have the court determine who owes what to who?"

Satire? Not really, just re-statement for clarity.

Thanks, John, for another fine column.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.